Back
RAVI NATH TILHARI
Rajaram – Appellant
Versus
Dy. Director Of Consolidation Sultanpur – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
1. Heard Shrii Vijai Bahadur Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Arya Shreshtha Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the opposite party No. 1.
2. For the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to other private parties is dispensed with.
3. This petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 27.09.2012 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Amethi Camp, Sultanpur in Appeal No. 72/ 363, under Rule 109-A(3) of U.P. Consolidation of Holding Rules, 1954, and the order dated 27.03.2021 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur in Revision Nos. 2238/267, 2240/1174, 2241/ 1175, under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
4. In the proceedings under Section 109A(3) the Consolidation Officer passed the order dated 11.04.1991, against which one Surya Narayan, who had purchased some part of New Gata No. 199/2-1-8 from Rajendra Bahadur Singh, filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which was allowed vide order dated 07.03.2001 and the matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer for fresh decision. Three revisions were filed. One by petitioners and tw
It is well known that "conclusions" and "reasons" are two different things and reasons must show mental exercise of authorities in arriving at a particular conclusion. In Union of India v. Mohan Lal ....
The Deputy Director of Consolidation's remand for a fresh hearing was justified to ensure fairness, given the significant delay and procedural irregularities in prior decisions.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation must adhere to remand orders and consider all relevant records and admissions before making decisions regarding co-tenancy rights.
Judicial orders must be made with integrity and transparency, and any manipulation or procedural irregularity undermines the validity of such orders.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation has the authority to decide appeals on their merits rather than remanding to subordinate authorities, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review under Sectio....
The court affirmed the principle that title objections must be decided on merit rather than based on previous compromises, ensuring fair opportunity for parties to present evidence.
The court ruled that title objections under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act must be decided on merit, emphasizing the need for proper jurisdiction and evidence rather than relying on alleged c....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
